User talk:Informed analysis

broken citation in Gregory Peck[edit]

Hi, in your edits, you removed a cite definition resulting in an error (ref 229). Please review your edits and restore the definition, thanks. Schazjmd (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what you did is called a named ref that had never been defined. I've undone that edit. Schazjmd (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 18[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Our Lady Peace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 4 AM.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your partner is editing again[edit]

A while back you had some issues with your partner coming home and editing as an IP on some of the same articles where you were involved in content disagreements. Just a heads up that your partner seems to have returned to this on entries such as Aerosmith. Larry Hockett (Talk) 04:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advice[edit]

Hi, I can see you're still getting into lots of disputes and edit warring, and I think I need to give some further advice.

Part of the problem you're running into is that you're walking up to good and featured articles and making wholesale changes to them, then getting argumentative when you are challenged. As Shshshsh explained when reverting you at Katharine Hepburn, "This lead is the accepted FA version, if you want to change it then discuss it on the talk page." While nobody owns articles, featured articles, and to a lesser extent, good articles, have been vetted by the community and there is a general agreement that what is presented is acceptable. And while it's also possible to do some improvements via copyediting, adding additional content without consensus or sources, and then arguing about it is just going to lead to you trouble.

My advice would be to focus on articles that need attention. A suitable place to start might be Category:Wikipedia articles with style issues by issue When an article has a maintenance tag at the top of the page, it's generally an indicator that nobody has worked on it extensively (or not recently) and therefore it needs work. If you focus on those sorts of articles, you're not going to run into issues.

I'm saying this because I'm concerned that the edit warring and incivility from you is likely to lead to a block if things don't change, and this is one way of doing it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Informed analysis. Thank you.--Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 8[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Genesis (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page That's All.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpages[edit]

They're there for a reason. Use them. Edit summaries and bluster at ANI are no substitute for consensus and explanation, especially in articles that have been extensively reviewed. Acroterion (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've made no attempt to discuss your edits with anyone in the appropriate places, and continue to disparage other editors, I've blocked you. I expect that some form of community sanction will be applied at ANI, unless you can provide assurance that you will address the behavior issues (as opposed to the content that you continue to inappropriately argue at ANI) that initiated the ANI discussion. Being convinced that you're right doesn't exempt you from the encyclopedia's behavioral conventions. Acroterion (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Acroterion, I saw your comments here; FYI, I just blocked the editor in part for their uncollegial comments and disruptive editing, but also because CU confirmed what common sense suggested: a serious habit of logged-out editing during conflicts. It's not an indefinite block, but that might be the next step. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

I don't get much sense that you've been paying attention to what anyone else has asked you to consider. You appear to be treating Wikipedia as a battlefield upon which you must prevail, on your terms, without any concession to anyone else. You keep arguing about content when you should be recognizing the shortcomings of your treatment of other editors. You are welcome to prove me wrong by visiting a talkpage and cordially and collegially making a case for your suggested changes, convincing people you're right. If you lash out at anyone again, you will just be blocked. Administrators aren't judges of content - we're prohibited from doing so for a host of reasons, and I'm not going to start now. We deal with behavior. Please reconsider your approach to your interactions with other editors. Acroterion (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Informed analysis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I gave clear information, right from the body of the article, about why certain songs were more signficant than the songs that others chose to list plus the band's success period lasted 20 years not just 10; I merely observed it seemed strange that Number 1 albums in Canada and 4x platinumn album in the US would not be mentioned - this things are covered in most other articles - just because 3 or 4 editors continually insert vague or wrong info does not make it correct info - they are bullying; Binksternet continually inserts careless wrong info Informed analysis (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is a checkuser block for logged-out socking, which you've not addressed, and which non-CU administrators can't undo. In any case, unblock requests blaming other users are summarily declined. And for the 100th time, administrators aren't going to pay attention to your arguments about content, or give credibility to the notion that everybody but you is wrong. You are well on your way to an indefinite block. Acroterion (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

August 2021[edit]

Block evasion by Toronto IPs Special:Contributions/205.189.94.2, Special:Contributions/205.189.94.9 and Special:Contributions/205.189.94.8. Binksternet (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]